How to decide a Justice can't rule on a case

We've tried several methods of deciding when a Justice can't rule on a case.

The method, saying "back in the day, justices knew how to act".

The method, of threatening a CC or never voting for the person again.

The method, or just nagging at someone without making overt threats.

The method, basically saying you can't decide and tossing a poll out there. (sorry Donsig, it's not meant to be a personally identifiable method, really)

Then there's the tactic of acting like "what conflict, I really don't understand."

Now, we can leave things status quo, or we can put a little common sense into the answer. How about this for ways we might decide Justice must step aside.

• A Justice can decide to step aside. Not much chance with this one given there are so many people worried about being "bullied", but one can always hope.
• We could say that if enough people ask for a Justice to step away from a case, they must appoint a pro-tem.
• We could put a provision in the law for a poll on the matter. There would be two arguments about that poll though, should it be private and how long should it last.
• The other two members of the court might be able to require the 3rd one to appoint a pro-tem. Then you get into issues where more than one Justice is affected by a case.
• We could drop the whole idea anyway and decide there is no way to administer making the decision a pro-tem is needed, and trust our Justices to do the voluntary thing.

Then there's the whole thing about what a conflict of interest really is.

or we could just ignore it, get on with the game and have some more fun

DaveShack said:

We could put a provision in the law for a poll on the matter. There would be two arguments about that poll though, should it be private and how long should it last.

Click to expand...

I think this is what we should do. It will avoid future problems in this area. There's no point in avoiding the arguments about poll length and private versus public polls. We have to resolve these questions anyway, don't we? Isn't the whole idea of a democracy game to come to a consensus about things either through discussion; discussion and polling; or discussion, polling and the making of rules/ laws? In this case discussion alone hasn't brought us to a consensus. I had hoped that polling was the answer but aparently it isn't so it does seem we have to make this a part of our laws.

I suggest we model this along the lines of confirmation polls. We allow any citizen to post a recusal poll asking if a justice should recuse him or herself from a specified case. Since such a poll is about an individual, it should be a private poll according to the laws we have already established. It should be a four day poll. We'd also have to put in a time frame for posting the recusal poll. Four days as well is what I'd suggest. We could put something in to allow the case to move forward during these periods. I don't see it being so difficult to draft such a law and try passing it.

Just like to add here that my mind has been made up about recusing myself this term - I just want something I can use to back up my decision should it turn out to be unpopular.

BCLG100 said:

or we could just ignore it, get on with the game and have some more fun

Click to expand...

I second this statement...

Whats that swoshing sound..the fun being sucked from the game by want to be judges...

Thank you BCLG100 and robboo for those very helpful comments. Now if you're really serious about ignoring this part of the game then why did you bother posting here?

donsig said:

Thank you BCLG100 and robboo for those very helpful comments. Now if you're really serious about ignoring this part of the game then why did you bother posting here?

Click to expand...

because the point needs to be made, participation has been on the slide because people are focusing way too much on issues like this and not on the game.

Probably because if we didnt repond..who else will. Have you noticed the lack of responses...NO ONE CARES what the Judiciary does. Do it and go back to playing the game.

By last count based on recent polls we have roughly 20-30 people that vote...and I would say roughly 6-10 that even care enough about the judiciary to post or repond in your threads.


Turth is ..not many really cares anymore..something ran everyone off....

Oh and to respond to your thread...let the judge decide. We voted for them.

I think it should just be left up to the Judges. If you don't like a judges decision, whether it be his decision or whether or not he recluses himself, then remember that in the next elections. Treat the Judges like every other elected official. This is getting ridiculous. If we elect someone judge, we are saying he has good decision making skills. Let him use it.

robboo said:

Probably because if we didnt repond..who else will. Have you noticed the lack of responses...NO ONE CARES what the Judiciary does. Do it and go back to playing the game.

By last count based on recent polls we have roughly 20-30 people that vote...and I would say roughly 6-10 that even care enough about the judiciary to post or repond in your threads.


Turth is ..not many really cares anymore..something ran everyone off....

Oh and to respond to your thread...let the judge decide. We voted for them.

Click to expand...

You know what, I CARE.

What I don't care as much about is the endless analysis and planning for the Civ 4 game that goes on. Quite frankly, it bores me to tears.

Some of us enjoy the government aspect of the DG. We enjoy some of these discussion, and the aspects of people's personality and view that are revealed in them.

So tell you what, you stop whining about the parts of the game that you don't like, and I won't start whining about the parts of the game that I don't like.

Fair enough?

-- Ravensfire

I think the idea of a recusal poll is good, but the timeframe suggested by donsig is far, far too long. 2 days to post, 3 day duration. In addition, it should be made clear that, for a Judicial Review only, the discussion may commence immediately. The timeframe to rule would start when the recusal poll completes.

We'd also need a provision that no ruling by any member of the court may be made until the timeframe for a Recusal poll passes, or if there is a Recusal poll, until the request is denied or a pro-tem replacement is found. This does mean the minimum time for a JR would be increased to at least 48 hours.

-- Ravensfire

robboo said:

By last count based on recent polls we have roughly 20-30 people that vote...and I would say roughly 6-10 that even care enough about the judiciary to post or repond in your threads.

Click to expand...

Hmm, there's a war on (or at least I thought we just voted that) but nobody seems to be discussing how to conduct it. There are 2 1/2 days left until the scheduled turnchat time.

Now DaveShack - SURELY you aren't suggesting that people complaining about the lack of discussion on game-related topics actually discuss game-related topics, are you?

Nah, must be me ...

-- Ravensfire

DaveShack said:

Hmm, there's a war on (or at least I thought we just voted that) but nobody seems to be discussing how to conduct it. There are 2 1/2 days left until the scheduled turnchat time.

Click to expand...

IT was a holiday and we are waiting to decide to patch...kinda hard to discuss anything till the patching issue is resolved.

As far as I know the war has not been declared ..the city isnt size 2 yet. Besides that..at the time of my above post...I think the poll was still open...

DaveShack said:

Hmm, there's a war on (or at least I thought we just voted that) but nobody seems to be discussing how to conduct it. There are 2 1/2 days left until the scheduled turnchat time.

Click to expand...

i thought that poll was just asking if we wanted to go to war, not when.

BCLG100 said:

i thought that poll was just asking if we wanted to go to war, not when.

Click to expand...

That is correct - but there are several requirements to that authority, in particular the plans MUST be approved by the Assembly.

What should have been happening the past few days or so is SOME discussion on how to conduct a war with the Mongols. What's the strategy? What current troops would be involved? Do we need more - what type?

It's rather lacking.

-- Ravensfire

ravensfire said:

That is correct - but there are several requirements to that authority, in particular the plans MUST be approved by the Assembly.

Click to expand...

Maybe I misread it..or missed it..BUT where in the CoL does it say PLANS must be approved. It states Declaration of War must be approved.

ALSo..I was waiting till after Old Sarai got to size 2( as per 3 or 4 discussions)..so we can get troops and see if we even have enough to do anything.


ALSO..bring SoW questions to my thread not in a thread where people who really dont care about the judiciary wont read.( for instance..I only read this because of a PM from someone)

War discussion moving to SoW thread - sorry, donsig.

-- Ravensfire

ravensfire said:

War discussion moving to SoW thread - sorry, donsig.

-- Ravensfire

Click to expand...

I voted against the war so I'm not helping to plan it.

I'm not against the time frames you suggested. The question is, do we need a full blown amendment or can this be instituted using judicial and / or censorial procedures?

Oh, I forgot, there's still the quesiton of whether a recusal poll would be private or public. I think they should be private. I think ravensfire may still think they should be public. Is it possible to allow either for a recusal poll and let the citizen posting it choose which to use?

donsig,

Recusal poll would be best handled as an update to the Judicial Procedures for the near future, and should probably be added as a CoL amendment. Adding it as a JP is much, much faster.

As a Recusal poll would be posted (generally) as one citizen asking a question about another in the same format as a confirmation poll, it should probably be private.

Now, before you start in on it, it's quite different from your poll, as you well know. You were asking, AS AN OFFICIAL, what to do - that should NEVER meet criteria for a private poll,. Splitting hairs? It's close, but two different animals.

-- Ravensfire

ravensfire said:

Now, before you start in on it, it's quite different from your poll, as you well know. You were asking, AS AN OFFICIAL, what to do - that should NEVER meet criteria for a private poll,. Splitting hairs? It's close, but two different animals.

-- Ravensfire

Click to expand...

It seems to me then that the Censor has to also have procedures in place so citizens and justices know how handle recusal questions. I agree the procedure route is quickest and I'll do my part to get them added.

Would you do me a favor in the mean time? Would you post a poll as a citizen that replicates my poll (i.e., private and four days long) with the same question, so I can have something legal and binding to go on?